MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603084467 · doi:10.1155/2010/154791

A Randomized Trial of Topical Anesthesia Comparing Lidocaine Versus Lidocaine Plus Xylometazoline for Unsedated Transnasal Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

2009· article· en· W1603084467 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin Cheung, Karen J. Goodman, Robert J. Bailey, Richard N. Fedorak, JOHN LOVETT MORSE, Mario Millan, Tom Guzowski, Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Canadian institutionsMisericordia Community HospitalGovernment of Northwest TerritoriesUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Association of Gastroenterology
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaLidocaineVisual analogue scaleEndoscopySurgeryRandomized controlled trialEndoscopeAdverse effectInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The optimal topical anesthesia regimen for unsedated transnasal endoscopy is unknown. The addition of a nasal decongestant, such as xylometazoline (X), to a topical anesthestic may improve patient comfort. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of lidocaine (L) versus L plus X (LX) for anesthesia in unsedated transnasal endoscopy. METHODS: Consecutive participants of the Aklavik Helicobacter pylori project were prospectively randomly assigned to receive LX or L for unsedated transnasal 4.9 mm ultrathin endoscopy. The primary outcome was overall procedure discomfort on a validated 10-point visual analogue scale (1 = no discomfort, 10 = severe discomfort). Secondary outcomes included pain, endoscope insertion difficulty, gagging, adverse events and encounter times. Results were presented as mean +/- SD, difference in mean, 95% CI. RESULTS: A total of 181 patients were randomly assigned to receive LX (n=94) and L (n=87). Baseline characteristics between the two groups were similar (mean age 40 years, 59% women). Overall, patient procedural discomfort with LX and L were 4.2+/-2.4 versus 3.9+/-2.1, respectively (0.29; 95% CI -0.39 to 0.96). Transnasal insertion difficulty was significantly lower with LX than with L (2.4+/-2.1 versus 3.2+/-2.8, respectively [-0.80; 95% CI -1.54 to -0.06]). Compared with L, the use of LX was associated with significantly less time needed to apply anesthesia (2.4+/-1.8 min versus 3.5+/-2.2 min, respectively [-1.10; 95% CI -1.71 min to -0.50 min]) and less time for insertion (3.2+/-1.8 min versus 3.9+/-2.2 min, respectively [-0.70 min; 95% CI -1.30 min to -0.10 min]). Epistaxis was rare but occurred less frequently with LX (1.1%) than with L (4.6%) (P=0.19). CONCLUSIONS: LX did not improve patient comfort for transnasal endoscopy compared with L alone. However, LX was associated with less difficulty with endoscope transnasal insertion and reduced insertion time. Further studies on the optimal regimen and dosing of anesthesia are required.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology and HepatologySame topicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia TechniquesFrench-language works237,207